JW Insider
-
Posts
7,727 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
450
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by JW Insider
-
-
9 hours ago, AllenSmith said:
JWinsider: . . . I'm sure they are already aware that the Bible only ties a time period of 1,260 days to the Gentile Times, not 2,520 -- so any major change to the chronology would have to address that problem, too. . . .
Revelation 11:2-3 Context: The Two Witnesses
2But exclude the courtyard outside the temple. Do not measure it, because it has been given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months. 3And I will empower my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for a thousand two hundred sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.
Thank you, Allen, for emphasizing the exact point I just made. You just highlighted the fact that the Gentile Times are "forty-two months" and you even put that time period in bold, and concluded that it equals 1,260.
As a reminder, again, just compare what Jesus said about the same time period.
(Luke 21:24) . . .and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
If we replace the word Jerusalem with the holy city and replace "the appointed times . . . are fulfilled" with an actual number of appointed times that fulfilled them, then the verse would say:
(Luke 21:24+Revelation 11:2) . . .into all the nations; and [the holy city] will be trampled on by the nations until [forty-two months] are fulfilled.
Compare that understanding of the verse with your quotation of Revelation 11:2 above
(Revelation 11:2) . . . to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.
Even the Greek word for trample is the exact same word in both verses. (The term "trample underfoot" in the NWT (KJV, etc) is translated from the exact same word for "trample" and is not from a separate word or phrase in Greek; it's just translated inconsistently. So the terminology is even closer than most Witnesses realize.)
Do you really doubt that Jesus' words in Revelation 11:2 are related to Jesus' words in Luke 21:24?
Why do you think that the WTS will never cross-reference these two verses even though it has been common to cross reference these verses for centuries? The WTS will not even use this verse as part of the evidence that 2,520 is the length of 7 times, which is what you just did above.
In fact, even John Aquila Brown, used 1,260 as the time period of the Gentile Times, as did many others in the years prior to him. Note the mistake in the Proclaimers book:
*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.One of the researchers of this book will quickly acknowledge that this was a mistake. John A. Brown never connected the "seven times" with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. This is supposed to say, he did NOT connect these "seven times" with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. Why would he? The Bible said it was 1,260, and so did Brown.
-
On 10/5/2016 at 2:26 AM, Anna said:
You mentioned the "overlapping Generation Theory" that was so "masterfully" explained by Br. Splane. The truth is that IF 587 was the TRUE date of Jerusalem's desolation, that would buy us 20 more years, and if we assumed a generation to be 100 years it might make the "overlapping" unnecessary. We have "dug" ourselves in so deep with 1914 (now with the Kingdom book) would going back on that date cause the "sheep to lose confidence in the slave"? I don't know how others feel, but I don't think so. After all, is being in the Truth about dates, or is it about our relationship with Jehovah, and our trust in Him? I wonder if the insistence on 1914 is merely to "save face" or is it because the slave REALLY believes 607 is the correct date? On the other hand, no one can deny that 1914 really was a pivotal date in world history. This cannot be said so much about 1934 except that Hitler appointed himself Fuhrer in October of that year.....How about Hitler becoming Fuhrer in 1934 being the direct opposite of Christ who would have been made King in 1934, and Satan who was hurled out of heaven exerting his influence on him (Hitler) to start WW2? Doesn't sound any more unbelievable to me than an overlapping generation
....
I think that if 587 were ever accepted we would not use it to end 2,520 years in 1934 so that we could reach 2034. If the WTS had wanted to reach 2034 it was still possible by pointing to the fact that there is always the possibility of 120-year-olds still alive in 2034. And of course, 120 could be argued to have a similar meaning in Noah's generation.
(Genesis 6:3) . . . Accordingly, his days will amount to 120 years.”
Because of the thousands of references to 1914 in the history of the Watchtower magazine (over 4,000 of them just since 1950), it's hard to see why 1914 would be tossed out just on account of a potential for a 20 year adjustment. Even if we accepted 587, we could still use 607 as the beginning of the time when Jehovah replaced the Assyrian empire with his "servant" the Babylonian empire in order to punish the nations around them (including the desolation on Judea and Jerusalem). It would not be any different from what has already been said about Babylon:
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.*** it-2 p. 1136 Tyre ***
Since the nations mentioned in the prophecy of Jeremiah were to “serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (Jer 25:8-11), this suggests that both the prophecy of Isaiah and that of Jeremiah related to Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign against Tyre.In other words, the Watch Tower writers are already very aware that the "70 years" need not run from the destruction of Jerusalem, but can (and should) run from the beginning of Babylon's hegemony. The original tradition that Barbour utilized to reach 1914 came from chronology by Christopher Bowen, and likely included Even-Tide by John A Brown, but another book that Barbour claims to have studied (Horae Apocalypticae) mentioned 1914 directly by adding 2,520 years to the beginning of the Babylonian conquest -- the 70 years. A Bible Student site shows this at http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/05 Horae Third Edition Chronology.htm
Of course if calculated from Nebuchadnezzar's own accession and invasion of Judah, B.C. 606, the end is much later, being A.D. 1914; just one half century, or jubilean period, from our probable date of the opening of the Millennium.
This could also have started at the time of Nebuchadnezzar's time as an army general, or when his father first started their campaigns after the fall of Assyria in 609 BCE. The chronology appear to match within one to two years, depending on how soon after Assyria fell that Babylon would have begun their campaign for empire.
What would be ideal for the GB is to find a good reason to keep 1914 or at least 1919 without any need for chronology to reach the date. I'm sure they are already aware that the Bible only ties a time period of 1,260 days to the Gentile Times, not 2,520 -- so any major change to the chronology would have to address that problem, too. It might seem weak as a stand-alone doctrine, but the WTS has always seen a lot of significance in the reaction of a council of churches to the League of Nations in 1918 and 1919, during the same time period when the WTS underwent persecution nearly to the point of destroying the WTS. This is seen as prophetically significant even though there is no independent Bible chronology that points to 1919. Yet, there are several publications that mention 1919 more than 1914:
- In Isaiah's Prophecy I, the score is 27 to 10 (1919 mentioned 27 times, and 1914 only 10 times)
- In Isaiah's Prophecy II, the score is 67 to 20
- In Know Jehovah, the score is 82 to 31
- In Paradise Restored, the score is 105 to 67
And several other books are nearly tied or both dates are mentioned dozens of times. In God's Kingdom Rules book the score is 34 to 65. The Revelation Climax book scores 102 to 77, Worldwide Security scores 32 to 31.
1919 is critical because it is the means by which the GB gains authority. A "foundation" document or "foundation" event has always been necessary to the authority of any particular religion, and it is extremely difficult to have such a date (or document) appear in the recent past; too many people remember the chaos of disbelief and doubt. It is always more credible at a distance.
(Matthew 13:57) . . . A prophet is not without honor except in his home territory. . .
- Anna and OtherSheep
-
2
-
On 10/5/2016 at 2:26 AM, Anna said:
This is just my opinion, trying to be logical about it: Anyone with the right qualifications (long years of faithful service, spirituality, being of the anointed, and rubbing shoulders with the right people) can become a member of the GB. Besides that, there really is nothing "special" about any members of the GB. I believe any JW who knows their Bible can come to the same conclusions as the GB, and I am sure there are hundreds of brothers and sisters who have already, before it ever becomes an "official" teaching, come to the "right" conclusion about a specific subject themselves. I don't want to brag, but it has happened to me several times. (And I can't even say my Bible knowledge is THAT good). So does that mean I was spirit directed? Of course not. No more than the members of the GB are. But somebody on earth has to take the lead of course. It would also be good however if the "leaders" were able to humbly accept mistakes and not feel the need to have to "appear infallible" because everybody knows they are not anyway. I am aware that they are concerned with "the sheep in their care not losing their confidence in them".
Just another opinion, but I would be careful not to imply that this is the complete picture. Yes, they want the "flock" to have confidence in them, and some have shown themselves to be haughty. But the majority have been very humble, peaceful brothers who have widely varying levels of scriptural knowledge. The key reason they are chosen is for their long record of loyalty to the organization. You would not be chosen if you are full of new ideas to discuss, because that in itself is considered a sign of disloyalty. (That is not meant in a derogatory way, it was just something that was obviously true, especially of the expansion of the Governing Body in 1974 and 1977.) Naturally, they all truly believe in all the core doctrines, and because they know the Watchtower publications as well as the Bible, they also "generally" believe that the chronology doctrines must be a part of that core set of doctrines. After all, even though the dates themselves have changed, these chronology doctrines have been a key part of the Watchtower tradition since the very first Watch Tower publications.
Therefore it is not merely a matter of protecting the "flock" from losing their confidence in them. They are trying to share their own confidence, and are looking for the most convincing ways to do it.
But they are also very aware that the phrases they still use in the God's Kingdom Rules! book are "stretching" the truth. As was already pointed out they have chosen the phrasing very carefully, which shows they have understood the limitations of what they should claim. I'm sure they are very well aware of the many arguments against the chronology traditions, but until there is a better way to explain them, they are in the same situation that the rest of us are in. They might question some meanings of certain words and ideas around the edges, but they can never question the doctrine "at its core."
I really doubt that any of them are very happy with the "overlapping generation" explanation, but I guess they must already realize that the best solution that comes next would be the solution that Brother Daniel Sydlik (GB) came up with: "just scrap the whole chronology thing, and start over from scratch." That must be the scariest idea ever because it truly would result in a large fall-out! I don't think it's their own reputations they care about here, but the fear of change, and the level of loss.
So, the current GB, just like the rest of us, are all inheritors of a tradition that must be accepted for as long as it has not yet turned into a major stumbling block.
- OtherSheep and Anna
-
2
-
3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
the generation will by no means pass away in that, at the time of reference, the generation will be so evidently present that it will be ummistakeable, i.e. not a dwindling remnant.
That's exactly what the level of emphasis already implies here! Even if we cannot always pick up that level of emphasis out of the expression [οὐ μὴ] alone, it alerts us to the idea that there is a "confident assertion" being proposed, and the next verse tells us that the emphasis was indeed intended to instill extra confidence in the prediction about the generation not passing away. (In this case, the confidence is that under no circumstances will this generation have died off before the stones of the Temple area are thrown down.) That level of confidence appears in the next verse. I'll choose Luke's version below for comparison, because sometimes if an additional meaning is appropriate, it shows up in the other gospel accounts:
(Luke 21:31-33) 31 Likewise also you, when you see these things happening, know that the Kingdom of God is near. 32 Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all things happen. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away.
Of course I also used Luke's version to show that the arrival of Kingdom of God has clearly not already happened during the generation, or at the beginning of the generation, as our doctrine requires, but arrives after these things have occurred.
There are some similar constructions of the idea that probably give the exact sense of Matthew 24:34:
(Matthew 10:23) . . . for truly I say to you, you will by no means [οὐ μὴ] complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the Son of man arrives.
(Matthew 16:27-28) 27 For the Son of man is to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will repay each one according to his behavior. 28 Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all [οὐ μὴ] until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.”
(Mark 9:1) . . .“Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all [οὐ μὴ] until first they see the Kingdom of God already having come in power.”
(Luke 9:27) 27 But I tell you truly, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all [οὐ μὴ] until first they see the Kingdom of God.”
A couple of these verses were referencing the fact that some of the apostles were given a direct visionary experience or revelation of that Kingdom of God, and a couple of them were in direct reference to the time when "no stone would be left on top of another, and not be thrown down." While the Temple destruction was not the final judgment, it was treated as another vision or revelation of that same final judgment which could now immediately follow at any time after the judgment on the Jewish system of things.
All the Bible contradictions that derive from the Watch Tower's traditional view about the parousia (since before 1879) can easily be resolved by understanding that Jesus' "presence" begins at the end of this generation. It is the only solution that works for both the judgment on the Jewish system of things and the final judgment on the world-wide Gentile system of things. 1914 is therefore superfluous, in addition to directly contradicting Jesus' words about the times and seasons being in the Father's jurisdiction.
It also resolves the idea of the "generation" perfectly, because Jesus refers to the fact that the stones of the Temple would indeed come crashing down within the lifespans of many of those who heard him predict it. It would not be just a dwindling remnant. And of course Jesus was right, it wasn't just a dwindling remnant. These things were predicted around 33 CE and occurred between 66 and 70 CE, only 33 to 36 years into the future. By no means did that generation pass away within 36 years; many lived to see it. No one had to come up with some means of making it work with a two-phase generation, or by some other meaning imposed upon the term.
- HollyW and OtherSheep
-
2
-
My view, for what it's worth, is that this particular translation ("by no means") is just one way to state the emphasis. I believe that ThePraeceptor called it a little more accurately when he used the term "most certainly will not pass."
In other words, in Greek, it does not necessarily carry the same literal idea that can be hinted at in the English expression "by no means."
In English, it can seem to be the equivalent, in this context, of saying: "You should not expect any attempts, or circumstances, or methods, or ways, or means to make this prediction fail." But in Greek, at best, it's a way of saying: "Do you think this prediction might fail? No way!!" [Matching a colloquial expression that creates an emphatic "No."]
Of course, depending on the immediate context, it might still imply that first idea. But it is just as likely that it was a stylistic preference where the common term for "no" or "not" is worded with slightly more definiteness. I say that because there are other examples in the style of Jesus' words where Jesus intentionally comes across with a not-too-subtle "sureness" or speaks with "authority" with such expressions. (Also, it's fairly common in the Greek Scriptures to use this same "οὐ μὴ" expression where the emphasis doesn't seem to be much needed, or doesn't seem to add much emphasis anyway.) In this case, the emphasis on the fact that this prophecy cannot fail is re-stated in the next verse: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away."
-
58 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:
I mean, you have a two stage relay.
Really? Why do you believe that a "two-stage relay" is an appropriate analogy. As long as we are using a slippery definition of the word "generation" why not a "four-stage relay"?
-
33 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:
Why does the NWT render it in this particular manner?
Because it's a double negative. In Greek, a double negative emphasizes the negation (in most cases), rather than the way it works in many modern languages where (formally, at least) it creates a positive.
-
Nothing wrong with asking the question, just because the answer is wrong.
If I'm conducting, it's merely: "OK. This paragraph has a very interesting question next to it: . . . [read question] . . . "
-
No!
[speaking only for myself, of course!]
-
On 9/26/2016 at 11:59 AM, HollyW said:
If the men on the WTS Governing Body were to come right out and say they are infallible, would they lay claim to anything different than what they've already claimed?
I think this is a good question. I know from comments some Witnesses have made that they already believe that we should treat the spiritual food at the proper time as if it came from an infallible source. One of the elders in our congregation (who offered the closing prayer at the mid-week meeting this week) often "gushes" about the Governing Body in his prayer, and I cringe for how this sounds to any new ones. It is very common to hear many brothers mention (in prayer) how thankful we are for the provisions that the "faithful and discreet slave" has made for us, and this seems to be in better taste.
But the real answer to your question is that they never would and never will. They don't believe they are, and they never will. If any one of them suggested it, he would likely be kicked off the Governing Body for suggesting something so fallible. They definitely don't treat each other as infallible. Bethelites say that the argumentative spirit is even more palpable among them now than it was in 1980 when political factions among them reached a peak that I thought it could never reach again. But the arguing is now done by proxy through the Governing Body "Helpers," and appears to be getting worse as they all get older. If anyone doubts this, just ask any Bethelite who has been anywhere near the door of the Helpers meeting in the last few months.
So it's an impossible hypothetical. But I'm guessing that the real question is whether we already treat the Governing Body as if they were infallible.
I think there are a few factors that can lead to this, and the types of quotations you made from Watch Tower publications provide the primary basis. The repetition of similar sentiments in congregation talks and prayers is the secondary basis.
The third basis is the way that we cover for them when errors are made, and this is partly due to appreciation for the unity of the organization and for the international brotherhood that has developed from this organization. To that extent, what we are doing is fine and right, for "love covers a multitude of sins."
But it's dangerous is when pride becomes the factor by which we defend any past lapse in judgment. This happens to all of us to some extent, because we can become prideful and arrogant that we have the only true religion, that Jehovah loves us more than our fellow man, that we are preaching to others because we are better and more righteous than they are, that our doctrines are not only correct but that opposing doctrines come Satan rather than human error.
This attitude of pride goes right to the top of our organization, and this is why it sometimes shows up in the self-righteous statements that sometimes slip through the editing process and appear in print. At the highest levels people saw this in Brother Rutherford, and one well-known and well-respected brother even won a case in court against him for Rutherford's abusive behavior. An old friend of mine at Bethel (A.Worsely) who was in court that day defended Rutherford and felt badly for having lied in court to do it, yet he says he lied because of fear of the same abusiveness. Brother Knorr was also known as a vindictive, petty "dictator" when it came to anyone who questioned his decisions. Knorr thought of many of the jobs at Bethel as menial and demeaning and would therefore use them as punishment when someone spoke up about an injustice. He punished older brothers by changing their job from the Home Office to the factory-bindery. He removed privileges from people he saw as gaining too much attention for themselves, even if it was only for the sin of writing "Faith on the March" (A.H.MacMillan) or defending Cassius Clay (H.Covington). A friend of mine, the former editor of the Awake! magazine (C.Quackenbush) was only one of several older brothers invited back to Bethel immediately upon Knorr's death, while I was at Bethel. People (including myself) saw this attitude continue in F W Franz and Ted Jaracz who would also become abusive and vindictive when their views were not seen as 100% correct.
From what I'm told, the current Governing Body are a much more peaceful group, but the Helpers, the ones who prep them on issues (and who are now involved in voting them into office) are vying and jockeying on a lot of issues these days, some doctrinal and some financial.
That background should help you see why such a claim would never happen, but our own pride in our organization makes us treat our doctrine as sacrosanct. Even if we know it could change at any time, we defend current doctrine because of the teaching about the "faithful and discreet slave" who gives us "food at the proper time." The idea is that even if it isn't 100% true, it's "true for now" which is sometimes implied by "food at the proper time." This used to be taught using the same words that Seventh Day Adventists use (and other Second Adventists and Bible Student groups). They called it "present truth" based on the same misunderstanding that Russell and others had about 2 Peter 1:12. The Watchtower has used expressions to defend past incorrect teachings as incorrect but really just 'the right thing but at the wrong time' or 'the right time, but expecting the wrong thing.' Our view of Romans 13:1 between the 1929 and 1961 has been treated as an incorrect doctrine, but sometimes it's pointed out that this wrong doctrine was important for the progress of the organization at the time. Other wrong doctrines have been treated as tools for "testing and refining" of God's people.
A better view of changing doctrines is put in better perspective here:
*** w72 8/15 p. 501 God Readjusts the Thinking of His People ***
JEHOVAH is infallible, and he is the Great Teacher and Leader of his people. (Ps. 143:10) They are fallible, and at no point do they understand all things. God leads them progressively so that the truth constantly grows brighter, they reflect more fully God’s glory, and they are transformed more and more into his image. (2 Cor. 3:18) They come to know him more intimately. Their needs are fully supplied, everything for their spiritual welfare being provided. (Phil. 4:19) Such progress involves changes, readjustment of their thinking.
Some persons, however, object to changes in viewpoint, changes in understanding of certain scriptures or procedures. For example, since the 1940’s Jehovah’s witnesses have refused to give or accept blood transfusions, whereas prior to that they did not take this position. Since 1962 they understand the “superior authorities” of Romans 13:1 to be the rulers of worldly governments, whereas up to that time, since 1929, they had held a different viewpoint. Other examples could be cited. Does this show that Jehovah’s witnesses do not have the truth? Does this bring into question the basic principles of their teachings?
Not at all. Jehovah’s witnesses do not claim infallibility. They are being taught by God. (Isa. 54:13) Never will they know all things, but they will continually be learning from the inexhaustible wisdom of God as they walk in his truth.
The article goes on to discuss some issues, including the importance of believing in "types and anti-types" although this has recently changed again (2014).Most Witnesses have the proper attitude, because we have been taught that the GB is not infallible, even during that one meeting a week when they meet together and make decisions.
-
19 hours ago, AllenSmith said:
Can you apply the same reasoning, when you yourself made it a point to “post” the most controversial and foolish argument in another thread?
Yes, of course. The reason was not hidden at all. And while it is controversial, I said it only seems to be foolish, at first. Did you notice how you claimed I said I said it was foolish, when I said "this one might appear silly at first"? Do you see how that is dishonest? Do you see how you would have pointed out the same dishonesty if someone tried that kind of wordplay on you?
I believe it is very serious because it speaks to how well we appreciate truth. I brought those same concerns over from the "Millennium" topic to this topic for the same reason. I'll explain:
It is easy to show that the WTS has repeatedly made the claim that "they" predicted decades in advance that Christ's invisible presence would start in 1914. It's easy to show that the WTS has repeatedly made the claim that "they" predicted decades in advance that Christ would begin his reign as King in 1914. It's easy to show that the WTS has repeatedly claimed that "they" predicted, decades in advance, that the time of trouble seen in 1914 was evidence that what they had predicted (at least since 1904) was correct.
Yet all of those claims are false. "They" didn't predict decades in advance that Jesus would begin his presence, his kingship, or the type of trouble that was seen in WWI. ("They" predicted a vastly different kind of trouble, with a completely different outcome).
I have put the quote marks around the word "they" to point out that the claim has been worded in different ways so that the following ideas might be believed: "sincere Bible students predicted," "Jehovah's Witnesses predicted," "Bible Students were proclaiming," "Charles Taze Russell and his associates proclaimed" "the pages of this very magazine pointed to the time," "The Watch Tower publications had been predicting," etc., etc.
The claims have sometimes been worded in a way that is clearly false, yet they have been repeated several times. After the Proclaimers book, however, the Watch Tower publications have become more careful about not making these statements in such direct false terms. They have resorted to implying it, instead.
Implying something often enough, however, is just as misleading as stating it in false terms. Any lover of truth should be very concerned about this. We should not just be concerned with the idea that people are being misled, but we should also look at the same point from a higher level and ask why. What is the reason that this same point has been implied dozens of times?
The God's Kingdom Rules book gives us another glimpse into the reason, and it's very consistent with the reason that invariably follows the context of prior claims just like it. It's so that we have more trust in the men who "discerned" these things in advance. If we can be impressed that a "true prediction" as important as this one could have been predicted so many years in advance, then we will be more apt to believe that the persons behind that prediction were "spirit-directed." We will be more apt to believe that the entire "spirit-directed" organization that these men represented must have been blessed with powers of discernment that carries over into all other teachings. In other words, our belief that they were able to make this prediction can lull us into a false sense of security. It may have the effect of motivating us to defend a false teaching because we feel it must be "spirit-directed.
I personally believe that our teachings about hell, Trinity, political neutrality, Jehovah's sovereignty, etc, are the best around, but this shouldn't lull me into thinking that we don't have to test all the teachings. Perhaps the teaching about the "overlapping generation" is a false teaching that we should be questioning, and yet relatively few are questioning the teaching. More persons appear to be defending it as best they can. Also, the misleading idea that the early Bible Students "discerned" Christ's invisible presence in 1914 has been made a key element in the definition of the "overlapping generation" theory. This is not very likely just a coincidence.
Quote*** w14 1/15 p. 31 pars. 15-16 *** . . . “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” . . . Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year. . . . The second group included in “this generation” are anointed contemporaries of the first group. They were not simply alive during the lifetime of those in the first group, but they were anointed with holy spirit during the time that those of the first group were still on earth.
Ignoring our responsibility to question every teaching can be dangerous for Christians, because it can make us unwilling to follow the Bible's counsel not just for ourselves, but then we are no longer in a position to help our brothers and sisters if we see that they might be taking a false step.
(1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God. . .
(1 Thessalonians 5:20, 21) 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.
(2 Corinthians 13:5) Keep testing whether you are in the faith; keep proving what you yourselves are. . . .
(Acts 17:11) . . .carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
(Proverbs 14:15) Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.
(Philippians 1:9, 10) . . .And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things, so that you may be flawless and not stumbling others up to the day of Christ;
(Romans 12:2) . . .so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
(Ephesians 5:9-10) 9 for the fruitage of the light consists of every sort of goodness and righteousness and truth. 10 Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord. . .
- HollyW, OtherSheep and Anna
-
3
-
20 hours ago, AllenSmith said:
That, however, doesn’t explain the misrepresentation on the narrative you proposed here, so let’s not use wordplay to deviate from the original message.
Wise words!
Sometimes I can only guess that you don't really understand that, while your sources contain information that is very interesting, it's usually information that I already agreed with. When it's relevant to the topic, very often it even supports of the point I was making. I've seen you include information that I was about to use. Of course, in the case of the various Bible Student groups, we can't just accept everything they say without question. Some have also shown that they are capable of distorting their history, in those "episodes" of their history that they find embarrassing or difficult to explain. (And some are not yet embarrassed about certain beliefs or "episodes" where they should be. Some still don't recognize what Rutherford correctly recognized about their own view of Russell, for example.)
The point you brought up about Russell and the Peoples Pulpit was not very relevant to what Russell taught anyway. It's true that there are some differences between what Russell said about himself and what various Bible Student groups said about him. These differences are interesting but not relevant to what the current Watch Tower publications mean when they speak of Bible Students discerning Christ's invisible presence in 1914.
On the very irrelevant point about Russell's claims about himself or the Peoples Pulpit Association you already countered your own claim for me, and provided the relevant argument that agrees completely with the point I was making when you said:
20 hours ago, AllenSmith said:In 1909 he thought the "People's Pulpit Association" sounded better, the headquarters of which he established at Brooklyn, New York. In 1909 he resumed the title "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society." In 1914 the work was being carried on as the "International Bible Students' Association."
Thinking that some particular name sounded better, but then going right back to "resuming" the title "Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society" in the same year, was probably the very reason that so few people in the world associate Russell with the Peoples Pulpit, and why a relatively large majority of those who know about Russell only associate him with the WTB&TS and IBSA. You also mentioned that some Bible Students said he wanted full and complete control over the PPA. That's true, but it's exactly what he wanted (and had) over the WTB&TS, too.
The reason I hesitate to engage with your argument in more detail however is that, too often for my taste, you tend to sound not just nasty but also dishonest. I think you already know that this is the reason you have lost the respect that you seem to crave, even from fellow Witnesses. When you make false claims and get caught, you can merely claim as you did here, that 'that's what you meant' when your actual words show that meant something different. More often you merely ignore it when it's pointed out that your point was wrong, then pivot off to another subject where you often make more false claims, and you usually remember to offer up a few random insults and project a few of your own bad habits and fallacies onto other people.
If you would like to engage in a real dialog with anyone on any of these subjects, I think you already know what you should do differently.
(1 Peter 3:15) 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.
(Colossians 4:6) . . .Let your words always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should answer each person.
(Philippians 4:5-7) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men. The Lord is near. 6 Do not be anxious over anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication along with thanksgiving, let your petitions be made known to God; 7 and the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and your mental powers by means of Christ Jesus.
(James 3:17, 18) 17 But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, reasonable, ready to obey, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial, not hypocritical. 18 Moreover, the fruit of righteousness is sown in peaceful conditions for those who are making peace.
(Titus 3: 2) 2 to speak injuriously of no one, not to be quarrelsome, but to be reasonable, displaying all mildness toward all men.
(Titus 3:9-11) 9 But have nothing to do with foolish arguments and genealogies and disputes and fights over the Law, for they are unprofitable and futile. 10 As for a man who promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition, 11 knowing that such a man has deviated from the way and is sinning and is self-condemned.
(1 Timothy 1:5-7) 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.
- OtherSheep and HollyW
-
2
-
On 9/30/2016 at 0:55 PM, Eoin Joyce said:
If they could get the date of Christs presence wrong then they could get the date of discerning it wrong at the same time couldn't they? It makes no difference to the actual event and the fact that Rev.12:7-12 started its fulfillment in 1914.
I understand your point from the first sentence, and I agree with the statement they could get a lot of things wrong and it doesn't necessarily change anything about the "actual event." But it certainly doesn't instill any confidence in the later claims about the supposed "actual event," either.
The claim that Revelation 12:7-12 refers to 1914 is contradicted by both the Bible and the Watch Tower publications. I think part of this is because they didn't understand the Greek of Matthew 24:8. If they had the NWT at that time, perhaps they would have dropped the entire 1874 to 1914 schema much earlier.
Russell and Rutherford had continued to quote Matthew 24:7,8 as follows:
24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 24:8 All these [are] the beginning of sorrows.
This was treated as if it were the general word for "sorrows" although the word sorrows is not the best way to translate it. The NWT correctly translates it as:
(Matthew 24:8) All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress. [early birth pangs, pre-labor pains]
(Revelation 12:1, 2) . . . A woman was arrayed with the sun, and the moon was beneath her feet, and on her head was a crown of 12 stars, 2 and she was pregnant. And she was crying out in her pains and in her agony to give birth.
In fact, the word in Matthew 24:8 is associated with the writhing pain of childbearing, so that the Greek LXX uses it when translating Hosea 13:13, for example, and other verses in the Hebrew Bible where expressions about a mother in childbirth pains was explicitly included in the context, including several Hebrew Bible passages that match the context of Matthew 24:
(Hosea 13:13) 13 The pangs of childbirth will come for him.. . . ( ὠδῖνες ὡς τικτούσης ἥξουσιν αὐτῷ)
The Watchtower, July 1, 1933, p. 204:
It had its beginning in 1914 and is still progressing. It was 1914 that marked the time of ''the beginning of sorrows'', and the sorrows continue upon the world. At the same time the truly anointed ones are rejoicing, not because of the sorrows and sufferings upon human creatures, but in the fact that the day of deliverance is at hand and that this deliverance will come through God's Anointed King.
The Watchtower, November 1, 1931, p. 325, 328:
It was in 1918, or three and one-half years after the birth of The Nation, that Christ came to the temple of Jehovah for judgment. . . . Who on earth understood prior to 1918 that Zion is God's organization and gives birth to the kingdom and to her children? The fact that no one on earth did so understand prior to the Lord's coming to his temple is proof that it was not God's due time for them to understand. Who understood prior thereto about Satan's organization, the battle in heaven, and the casting of Satan out of heaven 7 Manifestly no one could understand these things until the temple of God was open. (Rev. 11: 19) Only those who by the grace of God have been taken into the temple do now understand. These do not understand by reason of knowledge or wisdom that comes to them from any man, but they are taught of God, who teaches them the truth by and through the Head of the temple class, Christ Jesus. Why then should those today who really believe they are servants of God hesitate for one moment in determining the question concerning who gives them the doctrine of truth?
The problem is pretty clear. Russell had a woman going through the beginning labor pains before giving birth in 1914, and Rutherford has the labor pains after she gives birth in 1914. Rutherford and Witnesses for many decades were stuck with the second part of this problem, trying to use the "birth of the kingdom" analogy, because the pangs were only interrupted in 1918 on account of the chosen ones, but those birth pangs are expected to start up again prior to Armageddon when the Kingdom comes again, in the sense of the "Lord's Prayer" ["Let you kingdom come. . . ." -- Matt 6:10] Rutherford made much from the idea of the "Birth of a Nation" which also played upon the infamous, racist movie of this era.
Rutherford had an interesting solution, which might seem required when you factor in what Paul said:
(1 Thessalonians 5:2-4) 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. 3 Whenever it is that they are saying, “Peace and security!” then sudden destruction is to be instantly on them, just like birth pains on a pregnant woman, and they will by no means escape. 4 But you, brothers, you are not in darkness, so that the day should overtake you as it would thieves,
He taught that the pangs of distress (including WWI) were these beginnings and that the "thief in the night" analogy applied to the sudden surprise of 1918 when Jesus came to his temple:
Watchtower, May 1, 1941, p. 140:
From time to time in these columns the Scriptural proof has been submitted showing that the Lord came to his temple in 1918. His coming then was like a thief, and the fact of his coming then was not known to the "remnant" of Jehovah's witnesses on earth until some time thereafter, not till 1922.
[This fits the other teaching that they were without Holy Spirit since 1918, and were "asleep" in 1918.]
Watchtower, April 1, 1941, p. 100:
The fulfillment is in the ''last days", when the true and faithful followers of Christ Jesus are brought into the light, and hence are in the temple and are no longer in darkness. Now they are children of the light: "Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil." (Eph. 5: 14-16) "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day; we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober." -- 1 Thess. 5: 4-6. The Greater Barak, [Jesus Christ] the King of glory, has come . . . .
Watchtower, August 1, 1940, p. 231,232
These texts using the word "Lord" evidently do not refer to Jehovah, but do have reference to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and to whom the apostle refers in 1 Thessalonians 4: 15-17. This shows that ''the day of the Lord Jesus" refers to the time of his coming to the temple for judgment in A.D. 1918, or three and one-half years after he was enthroned. . . . The day of Jehovah God began in 1914 . . . But how about 1918? That did come as a thief and this shows that the day of the Lord mentioned by the apostle Paul in the foregoing text has reference to the day of the coming of the Lord Jesus to the temple for judgment and the beginning of judgment.
The birth pangs problem doesn't go away under Rutherford, but he found a way to completely ignore 1914 in discussions of Christ's presence. Oddly enough as of the August 15, 1940 Watchtower, Jesus invisible return, was evidently being moved from 1874 to 1918:
Watchtower, August 15, 1940, p. 253
Concerning his coming Jesus warned his followers that false teachers would arise and attempt to show that Christ is in the desert or in the secret chambers, as spiritists claim they have come in contact with him; but that his followers should give no heed to such advice. "For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so shall also the coming [parousia] of the Son of man be." Matt. 24: 26, 27. Jesus' words cannot mean that zigzag lightning comes always out of the east and shines unto the west and that this represents his coming. What his words really mean is that the lightnings come or appear in one part of the heavens and are seen by persons at different points and that therefore the lightning is not confined to a local place. It is seen by those who are watching. The statement recorded by Luke concerning the same thing supports this view: "For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day." -- Luke 17:24.
Lightning originates with Jehovah, says Jeremiah 10:13. Just so all light upon the divine purpose originates with Jehovah. When he reveals his light to his anointed church he does so through the Head of his organization, Christ Jesus. No human is able to make lightning. Likewise no human is able to point to the fact that Christ Jesus is at some local spot on earth. His presence is revealed to those of God's anointed remnant and their earthly companions of good will, all of whom look for the manifestation of his presence. In Matthew 24: 27, "coming'' specifically refers to his coming to the temple and his presence there for judgment of the "house of God", which house is composed of God's anointed and faithful ones and is not a material house of brick, wood or stone. (Mal. 3: 1-3; 1 Pet. 4: 17) Then Christ Jesus judges and disposes of the professed house of God, "organized religion" of "Christendom'', which is in fact a part of the Devil's organization. That judgment is now in progress, which proves that the Lord has come and is at the temple. The coming of the Lord to his temple [1918] is soon to be followed by a time of great distress upon earth, culminating in Armageddon, which will destroy Satan's organization.Watchtower, September 15, 1940, p. 279:
In answer to the prayer of God's devoted people for deliverance and prosperity he sent his beloved Son, the King Christ Jesus, to the temple, and disclosed to his people the presence of Christ Jesus at the temple, where he had been from 1918 onward.
Watchtower, September 15, 1940, p. 287:
The presence of the Lord as represented by the ark of the covenant in his temple is a time of great shaking and agitation and commotion, all which is symbolically described at Revelation 11:19. This shaking, agitation, and commotion has been particularly true since 1918.
To me, this speaks very clearly to whether the Bible Students had really begun "discerning" anything about Jesus' invisible presence at some time during the year 1914. It even speaks to whether or not they were discerning anything in 1918, 1922, 1925, 1927 or 1930, which are some of the dates suggested elsewhere for when the "presence" might have been at least partially discerned to move from 1874 to 1914.
In 1933, the date for the "invisible presence" was still 1874. In August 1, 1940 (p. 248) the date for the "invisible presence" was still 1874. But as of the very next issue, August 15, 1940, references to both Christ's presence and Christ's coming did not reference 1914, and always spoke of the "temple" event in 1918, when Christ Jesus comes to the temple and remains invisibly present. The Bible Students are said to have seen the sign of that presence of Christ in 1918, but didn't recognize it until 1922.
-
3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:
The confusion comes from the fact that the term “wireless telephone” was widely used in 1922 for what we simply call “radio” today.
The expression first surprised me when I was looking up something about "Pastor Russell" in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle on microfilm at a NYC library, and I scrolled past a nearby headline about the "Wireless Phone" (from around 1913, I think). The versions from around 1910, as I recall, still required two separate pieces: both a receiver and a transmitter, but even then the big "selling point" was that it would fit inside your clothing. I don't remember it from the time, but just recently I noticed that one discussion said that it required about a 10 inch antennae, but would still fit inside your clothing.
Many of us kids in the 1960's built fairly small "crystal radios" and we would clumsily carry them around for fun. They were a little more akin to the "transistor radio" and, like you said, the early "Walkman."
The expression about something that can "fit in your vest pocket" was very popular at the time and was a selling point for small guns, slide-rules, protractors, books, etc., etc. Today we just say "pocket-sized."
-
11 hours ago, AllenSmith said:
However, the group Pastor Russell identified with the most was with the People’s Pulpit. Whereas the WTS was their publishing house for the IBSA, BSA, ABS, PSL, PSI, DBS.
You included a very similar point when you said: "Since Pastor Russell was representative of only the People's Pulpit? I didn't want to bring up the big guns,...[etc., etc...]"
You probably already know that you can read the original charters for the major U.S.A.-based associations at this site: http://watchtowerdocuments.org/corporate-charter-amendments/ .
Perhaps someone has copied them to other places now, too, so that you won't need to traverse the site of Barbara Anderson, a respected Watchtower researcher, but also an opposer of sorts.
The information needed to show the error you made is all found in Watch Tower publications. I'll quote just a couple of them:
Watch Tower, September 15, 1931 p. 279:
. . . to carry on said work orderly said company of Christians organized the corporations known as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the International Bible Students Association, and the Peoples Pulpit Association; and they used and now use these corporations for the publication of books, magazines and other Bible literature; and in the course of time said company of Christians became known by such names as, to wit, ''Russellites," "Millennial Dawn People," "International Bible Students Association,'' and other like names; . . . . [T]he Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and the International Bible Students Association and the Peoples Pulpit Association are merely names of corporations which as a company of Christian people we hold, control and use to carry on our work in obedience to God's commandments, yet none of these names properly attach to or apply to us as a body of Christians who follow in the footsteps of our Lord and Master, Christ Jesus.
Watch Tower, October 1, 1931 p. 297:
As faithful servants of God and followers of Christ Jesus we will continue to use the instruments the Lord has placed in our hands. Among these instruments are The Watch Tower, the corporations the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the International Bible Students Association, and the Peoples Pulpit Association; and these are used only as instruments to prepare and publish a proclamation or message.
Watch Tower, December 1, 1931 p. 360:
The proper relationship of the "Society", composed of God's anointed people now on earth, to the corporation, the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, is that the body of people who go to make up Jehovah's "servant" or witnesses is properly called the ''Society", and the corporation is the servant or instrument of this company of anointed people by which they carry on a part of their work. It was organized under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, but operates throughout the world. In 1909 the "Society", to wit, God's consecrated people, decided to move the operating headquarters from Pennsylvania to New York state; and in order to meet the conditions and enable this company to carry on its work in an orderly way, the Peoples Pulpit Association was incorporated and organized under the Membership Corporation Act of the State of New York, and it works together and in harmony with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. What is said about the Wat.ch Tower Bible and Tract Society is also true of and concerning the Peoples Pulpit Association, to wit: It is the servant or instrument of the "Society" . . . .
Watch Tower, January 1, 1934 p. 11
In the year 1884 these followers of Christ Jesus formed a corporation under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, which was then given the name Zion's Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. The word "Zion" is one of the names which Jehovah God has given his capital organization and frequently appears in the Bible. The word" Zion" appearing in the corporate name had no reference to or connection with the Jewish organization which is called "Zionism". Afterwards the name of the above-mentioned corporation was, by the law of the State of Pennsylvania and order of court, changed to that of Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society; and the faithful followers of Christ Jesus on earth have continued that name of their corporation to this day. At no time has any Jew been connected with or supported the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. Merely for convenience and to comply with the laws of the land, and to further the interest of its work, the Society organized the Peoples Pulpit Association, in 1909, under the membership corporation law of the State of New York. For the same reason the International Bible Students Association was organized, in 1914, under the laws of Great Britain. These three corporations are really one, and they are all directed by the same officers and have possession and control of the property of the Society.
8 hours ago, AllenSmith said:Then, you need to further your research since the people's pulpit was the WTS before its name change in 1909.
This is also wrong. I won't go into all the details but you can see them from the quotes above, and perhaps just a couple more, I'll add below:
Qualified To Be Ministers, [1955] p. 309:
So in 1908 J . F. Rutherford, who by this time had become the Society's legal counselor and also a pilgrim traveling from city to city to give public lectures, and other Society representatives were sent to Brooklyn, New York, to negotiate the purchase of more desirable quarters. They obtained the old "Plymouth Bethel," 13-17 Hicks St ., Brooklyn, and the old Beecher home located at 124 Columbia Heights. To hold this new property in New York state satisfactorily and to do business within this state as a religious body it was necessary to form another corporation. Such a corporation came into legal existence February 23, 1909, and was named Peoples Pulpit Association . Thirty years later, in 1939, the name was changed to its present one, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc. From 1909 onward a monthly tract called "Peoples Pulpit" and then later "The Bible Students Monthly" was widely distributed by the millions, warning the Gentiles of the fateful year 1914 . And so for a number of years the society of witnesses became known as the International Bible Students Association, and, in 1914, the same identical work was organized under an association incorporated under the laws of Great Britain, under the name and style of International Bible Students Association.
*** jv chap. 8 p. 91 Declaring the Good News Without Letup (1942-1975) ***
On January 11, 1934, Brother Knorr was elected to be a director of the Peoples Pulpit Association (now Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.), and the following year he was made the Association’s vice president. On June 10, 1940, he became the vice president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (Pennsylvania corporation). His election to the presidency of both societies and of the British corporation, International Bible Students Association, came in January 1942.
Therefore, there is something else wrong with this additional statement of yours: "the people's pulpit was the WTS before its name change in 1909."
The Peoples Pulpit was an additional corporation, separate (legally) from the Pennsylvania corporation. Therefore, the WTS did not have a name change in 1909.
The "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society" (PA) continued to exist and the existing legal charter was continuously utilized for the publication of the "Watch Tower" magazine and nearly all of the other "Watch Tower" publications. [The "Watchtower" magazine is a still a "Watch Tower" publication (PA), as are almost all publications published, printed and distributed through the facilitation of the various corporations.] The "Peoples Pulpit Association" was a New York based corporation for the primary stated purpose of owning property. It was renamed "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc." and later adjusted to "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc."
Russell was not primarily associated with the Peoples Pulpit. He had already been associated since the 1880's with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (PA). He continued to be editor and publisher through that same corporation even after 1909 to 1916 when he died. The first major publication of the Peoples Pulpit that caused any specific people's names to become associated with it was published in Rutherford's time. It was the "Seventh Volume" a.k.a. "The Finished Mystery." (There was a method behind this, of course, because Rutherford knew he could not have had it approved through the board of the Pennsylvania corporation.)
*** ka chap. 16 p. 313 par. 46 Completion of the Foretold “Sign” Nears ***
- An early warning was given by the publication of the book entitled “The Finished Mystery” by the People’s Pulpit Association in July of 1917. . . .
@Eoin Joyce The apostrophe in People's Pulpit [sic] was not the fault of Running Elk. I believe this was elderly Sister Kramer who, I think, was the last person at Bethel to proofread this book before its last printing.
[Back to Allen]
There is one point that could favor your claim, but it doesn't make the claim correct. I believe it is true that most of the liquid (cash) financial assets of the Pennsylvania corporation were soon moved to the New York corporation along with Russell's personal cash and property ownership. Because he was going through a divorce and the court ordered him to pay Mrs. Russell for the equivalent of "pain and suffering," he was therefore able to argue that he didn't have any money to pay her, as it was all contributed to the Society. Rutherford was already providing great value as his personal lawyer and handling some of the Society's matters at the same time.
-
2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:
However, the group Pastor Russell identified with the most was with the People’s Pulpit. Whereas the WTS was their publishing house for the IBSA, BSA, ABS, PSL, PSI, DBS.
This is wrong, Allen.
On 9/27/2016 at 3:41 PM, AllenSmith said:Since Pastor Russell was representative of only the People's Pulpit? I didn't want to bring up the big guns, but since you're insisting on being so smart about the society only because you worked there, then explain to your audience the above statement by Pastor Russell.
This is also wrong.
That second quote, above, is the way you stated the same idea in the "Millions" topic. I don't intend to go off on a completely different topic like the one you had in mind when you said "please explain to your audience the above statement by Pastor Russell." It was part of a good question, and I'd be happy to respond if you would present it in a more appropriate topic or new topic.
But since you have repeated these ideas about "People's Pulpit," and represented them as some kind of "big guns" challenge, I'll oblige your attempt at antagonism.
First, please note that I have never claimed to be, as you claimed, "so smart about the Society." And it would be even more ludicrous for anyone to claim to be "so smart only because he worked there."
I do recall, however, that a user of the forum at jw-archive.org named "AllenSmith" has made the claim that he has two PhD's in Theology. And then, as if to drive that claim home, he added an additional username: "JW Theologian." I see that you have also used these same two names on this particular forum. (There are several comments still available over at jw-archive.org where this claim of yours has been commented on by several other users. I do not bring this up to get you censured or to try to get any of your accounts suspended, and I never have and never will. I appreciate your contributions here, and I'm sure others do, too.)
For myself, I only claim to have been involved in a lot of research, but this does not make me some kind of expert, or "so smart." I have a lot to learn, and hope to learn more. Considering the number of posts I've made, and the average length of these posts, I suspect that I have typos and/or grammar errors and/or accidental mistakes of fact in the majority, if not all of my posts. I love to get out my old notebooks and share things I've researched from as far back as 1977 and compare them with new things I have found more recently. I'm continually trying to get it right, and hope that others will be willing to help correct errors and misconceptions along the way.
(Matthew 13:52) . . . “That being the case, every public instructor, when taught respecting the kingdom of the heavens, is like a man, a householder, who brings out of his treasure store things new and old.”
I'll discuss the People's Pulpit Association in my next post.
-
10 hours ago, Kurt said:
the April 26, 1922 issue of The Golden Age magazine had a remarkable prediction of the future that has proven to be "spot on." Read it for yourself here:
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, a newspaper just a few blocks away from the Brooklyn Bethel HQ ran an advertisement for the Wireless Phones, attached below.
It includes the words: "Those who can see into the future prophesy that this means as great a revolution in its effect on social and political life as has been brought about by motion pictures. . [offering]. . splendid music . . . the news of the day . . . sporting events . . . weather forecasts . . stock market reports, reports, speeches by leading men." (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, February 1, 1922. p. 11)
On April 23, 1922 the Eagle ran a small ad for someone wanting to trade a soccer ball for two of them.
-
4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
The clarity of what was happening dawned on them gradually later, but I think it is pretty clear that they recognised that Jesus would become king in a special sense in sometime in 1914 because the ZWT of July 1 1904 (misquoted by me in an earlier post as Feb 1 1904 oops!) says:
ZWT July 1 1904
And if, as we believe the Scriptures to teach, Gentile Domination was provided for up to October, 1914, it would seem but a reasonable interpretation that divine power for the overthrow of the kingdoms of this world would not be exercised to their dethronement until after the time allotted for their reign had ended-October, 1914.
That indicates a sufficient level of awareness to constitute a beginning of discernment despite it being prior to 1914 (For me)
"They recognized that Jesus would become king in a special sense sometime in 1914."
Since Jesus was present in heaven since 1874 and even as "king over the kings of the earth" since 1878, and the purpose was to turn his attention to the earth in order to "prepare the way" for both literal Jews and Christians (especially his Church/Bride), then all expected events along the way were times when it could be recognized that Jesus had "become king" in a special sense. So, yes, it is true that even before 1914 they expected events in 1878, 1881, 1914, and 3-4 years prior to 1914, that could all show that Jesus had become king in a special sense. They also interpreted events related to the Zionist movement as events proving the efficacy of his kingship. They also interpreted the great progress in science and invention to be proofs of the efficacy of his kingship.
But there are still a few problems with this whole point about Jesus' kingship.
1. The topic is Jesus "presence" not his kingship. This discussion is strictly about whether it is honest or misleading to imply that Bible Students began to "discern" Christ's invisible presence at some point during the year 1914. And we must assume that this means it was discerned (in some way) in October, November or December of 1914.
2. Jesus' kingship was a separate thing that was already "discerned" to have started at a different time. You say you are only interested in the "reality" of the situation, which is another way of saying that false discernment doesn't count towards the discernment in question. In this way, you can dismiss the fact that they were already giving a separate date of 1874 to the invisible presence and 1878 to the date of Jesus holding the position of "king over the kings of the earth." Those false assumptions didn't count as discernment and therefore cannot discount the assumption that any type of significance they gave to 1914, right or wrong, did count as discernment.
3. The quote from 1904 says nothing about the kingship of Jesus or Jehovah. It only mentions that it was no longer going to be assumed that human power would play such a large "natural" role (through social unrest, war, revolution, political turmoil, labor agitation, socialism, etc.). The events causing turmoil and tribulation that were to start in 1910 or 1911 were going to be exacerbated through an economic depression that would have to start as early as 1908. This was changed in 1904, so that a tribulation could still come upon Christians in general prior to 1914 although the Bride would escape this tribulation because they were being taken at some point earlier. But the new idea was that this no longer needed to be a long drawn out tribulation that could span the time from 1908 to 1914. That would have interfered with the length of the Gentile Times, and the length of the harvest.
The basic idea of the change probably further explains the reason there was no discernment that the "war" was a fulfillment of either Christ's kingship or his presence in 1914, and why such discernment would have to wait until the war was over. It's because the war was seen as developing from human causes. Even into 1915, Russell talked about how the War was already seen to be progressing for years in advance, came as no surprise, and was easily predicted by anyone who had been watching world politics. (This is a different angle than the one we use in the "Out of Darkness" video, where we focus only on its unpredictability and surprise.)
In fact, your quote above from the July 1, 1904 Watch Tower, p. 198 included the following where the bracketed material appears in the original:
. . . it would seem but a reasonable interpretation that divine for the overthrow of the kingdoms of this world would not be exercised to their dethronement until after the time allotted for their reign had ended—October, 1914. True, it was to be in the times of these kings that the God of heaven would take from the mountain, without hands [not by human power], the little stone which should eventually smite the image in its feet. True, also, it was to be in the days of these last kings—represented in the toes of the image-- that the God of heaven should set up his Kingdom, which should break in pieces and consume all, but the setting up of that Kingdom we understand has been in progress throughout this harvest time, especially since 1878, since which time we believe that all the overcomers of the Church who die faithful are . . . immediately constituted members of the set-up Kingdom on the Other side the veil. Quite probably this setting up will consume nearly or quite all of the forty years of harvest time apportioned to it; but in any event, the time for the smiting of the image in its feet will not come until October, 1914 A.D., however much trouble and distress of nations may result from the prior awakening of their peoples under the enlightening influences of the dawning of the Millennial morning. Already such distress or perplexity is felt in quarters national, financial and religious. Our previous expectation was that the anarchistic period would last some three or four years, and in our mental calculations of the opportunities for harvest work, we naturally cutoff those years, and the time thus appeared shorter to us. Now, however, we see clearly that for some of the Church there probably remain fully ten years of experience, opportunities, testings, victories, joys and sorrows.
The December 1, 1904 Watch Tower, p. 363 also comes close to the point you are trying to make, but, again it may serve more as an explanation of why they could NOT discern even his kingship in 1914. It's because it was so obvious that they expected divine intervention, but all that 1914 showed them was human intervention. Babylon hadn't fallen in October. The Jewish nation had not been restored just prior to October or even in the following few months. There might have been every expectation that Jesus might use this particular time of turmoil to strike the nations with iron, but instead they continued striking each other.
*** Watch Tower, December 1, 1904, p. 363 ***
Similarly, at the time for the removal of the typical diadem from Israel, God's providences favored the exaltation of Nebuchadnezzar as a world emperor, the head, the first of a series of universal empires whose united reigns he foreshowed would constitute the "times of the Gentiles," the beginning and ending of which times are clearly marked. Evidently divine power had to do with the beginning of these times of the Gentiles and will have even more to do with their closing, at which time Immanuel shall take the reigns of government, the result being the dashing to pieces of the nations by the iron rod of his authority —-Rev. 2:27. *** end of quote ***
[Note the possibility of using Neb's first regnal year to start the Gentile Times. The 20-year difference had come up in 1904.]
5 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:Regardless of when they officially imagined Jesus' presence to commence, as long as that recognition coincides with the actual event in 1914, I am satisfied that, regardless of what their imagination deemed the event to be, discernment began.
This is a perfectly slippery position to hold. But the evidence might result in another difficulty.
The dates from the old "1874 chronology" included accepted prophetic fulfillments in A.D. 539, 1799, 1829, 1844, 1859, 1874, 1878, 1881, and 1914. By 1927, Rutherford had begun to dismantle several of the foundations for these. By 1929, Rutherford could review them in the December 15, 1929 Watchtower, p. 376,377 saying that:
[T]here does not seem to have been anything that came to pass in 1799 to fulfil this prophecy. The facts do
show, however, that many things have come to pass from 1914 onward in fulfilment thereof. Seeing that the 1260 days . . . does not seem to be . . . in 1799 . . . in fulfilment of this prophecy. . . . there appears to be nothing that came to pass in 1829 that fulfilled this prophecy. But the facts, as above stated, do show many things in fulfilment thereof from 1919 to 1922. Seeing that the 1335-day period must end with a blessed time to the poeple of God, it does not appear that anything came to pass to show a fulfilment thereof in 1874, even though the latter date marks the beginning of the Lord's presence and the beginning of his work in preparing the way before Jehovah. The time of blessedness could not come until after the purifying took place, when the Lord came to his temple; and that did not occur until 1918. But when we understand from the Scriptures and the physical facts that the "time of the end" was a definitely fixed time and must come when God places his King upon his throne, and that this occurred in 1914, then the other prophecies and the facts fit exactly as herein stated. Briefly, then, these prophecies and the dates of their fulfilment are as follows, to wit:The fixed "time of the end" is October 1, 1914 A.D.
The 1260-day period ended in April, 1918.
The 1290-day period ended September, 1922.
The 1335-day period of blessedness began May,
1926, and goes on for ever.
. . . Since 1918, when the Lord began judgment at
his temple . . .It's odd that all these dates were considered, or "discerned" while 1874 even had some former prophetic application taken away from it. Yet it was still (incorrectly) "discerned" to be Christ's invisible presence.
Not only that, Rutherford apparently did re-consider the date for Christ's presence. Throughout 1930 he never uses the date 1874, but adjusts it to "about 1875." This might be confusing for anyone who has seen 1930 mentioned as a specific year when 1874 was still in use. It's in the September 15, 1930 Watchtower. But notice the context:
Bible Students, having no better interpretation, have accepted the identification of the "man of sin" as the Papal system and have understood that power which had withheld, let or hindered its complete development to be the Pagan Rome empire and that when Pagan Rome was taken over by being overthrown by Papal Rome, then the Papal system or hierarchy was recognized as the "man of sin". In support of this interpretation it has been said that the Papacy was organized as a hierarchy about A.D. 300 and advanced to the zenith of its power about A.D. 800; that its decline began in A.D. 1400; that it was bereft of its temporal power in A.D. 1870; and that from the beginning of the Lord 's presence in 1874 the Devil used the Papal system as the chief opposing instrument of God's kingdom and that the Papal system will meet its final destruction at the beginning of the reign of Christ. -SS Vol. B, pp. 267-361.
Rutherford (as President & Editor) is only quoting a book (SIS, V2) that he had wanted to officially stop promoting in 1927. For financial reasons they kept up several campaigns to sell the remaining stocks (of many thousands) of these books (to the public) well into the early 1930's, and the "Kingdom Ministry" would announce when the last copies of "Studies in the Scriptures" were finally out of stock (for personal libraries) into the 1960's. I mention this because, due to doctrinal changes, there was a rather awkward relationship with these books during this period, as campaigns to sell the books were causing arguments and push-back against Rutherford about why they were asked to sell books wherein most of the doctrines had been discarded. (It was more than just dates and chronology, but several of the dates, too, had already been officially discarded.) And Rutherford was, at the exact same time, complaining that those old-timers who still believed in these books were the "evil slave."
But, in spite of all the changes, especially those starting in 1927, Rutherford had still not completely dropped the "1874 chronology." What I find interesting is that with all the discernment that went into re-thinking the dates of Christ's presence, and the changing of a couple of dozen doctrines that had been taught since Russell's time, he still couldn't look back on 1914 and see it as the beginning of the invisible presence.
Rutherford changed it more specifically from 1874 to "about 1875." He had also shifted away from speaking about a 40 year harvest to, instead, the "day of preparation" that ran from "1878 to 1918," and often "1875 to 1918." The September 1, 1930 Watchtower issue says this on pages 201, 202:
"With the beginning of the second presence of the Lord, approximately A. D. 1875, there was a change in the work. . . . The evidence seems quite conclusive that the gathering of these members of the body into the temple is almost complete, if not entirely so. The evidence shows that a great separating work has been going on since 1918 and that probably that separating work is not entirely completed, . . . .
The October 15, 1930 Watchtower, p.308 said:
The second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ dates from about A. D. 1875,
The idea was barely mentioned for a couple of years, and then in the June 1, 1933 Watchtower (p.174), it goes back to 1874, again:
The second and invisible presence of Christ dates from about eighteen hundred and seventy-four.
This 1875 wasn't really much of a change because the reason was that, in 1928, the entire matter was considered carefully and studiously and published in "Our Lord's Return." But it shows that discernment in the sense of serious reconsideration was going on through these years, and yet, 1874 was determined to be OK even after re-considering the dates related to it, and one of the last remaining foundations for it: 539 A.D.
The proof set forth in the booklet, Our Lord's Return, shows that 539 A. D. is the day from which the prophetic days of Daniel the prophet are counted. . . . These symbolic 1335 days represent that many actual years. That period . . . from and after 539 A. D. ended with the end of 1874 A. D., in the autumn season, or approximately the beginning of 1875. . . . About the beginning of 1875 the facts show that the light began gradually to come to the minds of the faithful ones, telling them that it is his due time for the Lord's presence.
It seems that this same idea of discernment as 'gradual light' was was already understood. They had reconsidered 539 A.D. to be true in 1928, then false in 1929, but continued to keep 1874, even though they had just knocked out the rest of the original foundation for it. This is an indication that there was no room for doubt about 1874.
I think that's all I'm going say on the idea that they were supposedly beginning to discern that 1914 was the beginning of Christ's presence all the back in the year 1914. Anything is possible, but it still doesn't ring true for me.
- HollyW, OtherSheep and Ann O'Maly
-
3
-
On 9/28/2016 at 2:23 PM, Eoin Joyce said:
Now they clearly acknowledged that Jesus would excercise his kingship in 1914 and related any events subsequent to the end of the Gentile Times as evidence of that.
As Jesus' excercise of kingship took place in 1914 and was not a reality before, then acknowledging the event in 1914 is for me the beginning of discerning that fact.
Be careful, here Eoin.
You have just said that "Jesus would exercise his kingship in 1914" and "acknowledging the event in 1914" is, for you, the beginning of discerning that fact.
The supposed "event" about exercising his kingship was still assigned to 1878 as far as they could discern in 1914. You mention elsewhere that a special indication of his kingship in 1914 was acknowledged as early as 1922. That's true, but it actually goes back no earlier than 1918. So it was not really "discerned" in 1914 that Jesus had become king. If he was exercising his kingship in 1914 it was not so different than he had been exercising it since 1878, and hardly different even from the way he had exercised his kingship since 33 CE, for that matter.
I know this is easy to dismiss, and, as far as I'm concerned, this horse has already been beaten into hamburger. But there is something very interesting about the context of Rutherford's statements about 1918, and, for me, it actually helps us understand the mindset of the Bible Students in general when they considered the events of 1914. So it's relevant to the original question. First a quote from 1931 (same one I just repeated to HollyW):
*** Watchtower, November 1, 1931, p. 376 ***
Who on earth understood prior to 1918 that Zion is God's organization and gives birth to the kingdom and to her children? The fact that no one on earth did so understand prior to the Lord's coming to his temple is proof that it was not God's due time for them to understand. Who understood prior thereto about Satan's organization, the battle in heaven, and the casting of Satan out of heaven? Manifestly no one could understand these things until the temple of God was open.
*** end of quote ***
Looking back, it might seem obvious that the teaching should have been that Zedekiah lost the throne 2,520 years prior to 1914, and Jesus would therefore take up the throne in 1914. Why would they continue to teach that 1878 was the date when Jesus began to rule as "king over the kings of the earth"?
There are several reasons they would have missed this opportunity to "discern." The main reason, of course, is the flexibility that began to be built into the fact that 1914 was to be an end to the time of trouble not the beginning. This had never meant that the chaos and tumult would be over instantly, even if sometimes implied. The fall of all human and religious institutions in October 1914 would likely take several months to resolve. It was often spoken of as lasting from 'October 1914 to October 1915,' and sometimes 'up until the end of 1915.'
A lot of times people will think that the "1915 idea" was added only after the failure of 1914. It's true that many references from 1914 were changed to 1915, during the beginning of that same year (and the March 1, 1915 Watch Tower referenced a more than a dozen changes to a couple of the Studies in the Scriptures books). Most of them were similar to these, quoted from that issue:
- Vol. II., page 81, line 9, "can date only from A.D. 1914," reads "could not precede A.D. 1915." . . .
- Vol. III., page 228, line 11, "some time before 1914," reads "very soon after 1914."
- Vol. III., page 228, line 15, "just how long before," reads "just how long after."
- Vol. III., page 362, line 11, "some time before," reads "some time near."
But 1915 was already a part of the discussion much earlier, due to the impracticality of believing that something could be so drastic in October 1914 and not require months of clean-up. But the clean-up timeline was still considered limited, (worked out by the end of 1915), because, after all, Jesus was in charge of these changes from heaven and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would be in charge from Jerusalem in Israel [Palestine]:
*** Watch Tower, December 1, 1902 [Reprints p. 3133. Brackets in original.] ***
Those who have studied the plan of the ages and its times and seasons know that this is due to be accomplished by the year 1915—only 12 or 13 years from the present time. Then will the words of this prophecy [Psalm 24:1-4] be fulfilled—The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein; for he hath founded it upon [instead of] the seas, and established it upon [in place of] the floods'—Verses 1, 2 . . . . That is, the present earth, or social organization, and the present heavens, or ruling powers, will have passed away, and the new earth will be established upon the ruins of the old" *** end of quote ***
*** Watch Tower, October 1, 1903 [Reprints p. 3249] ***
"It will be vain for Zionists to hope to establish an independent government in Palestine.... Palestine will be 'trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be filled full'—viz., October, 1914, A.D. By that time the heavenly kingdom will be in power and the ancient worthies—Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the holy prophets—will be resurrected and constitute the earthly representatives of the spiritual and invisible kingdom of Christ and his Gospel church." *** end of quote ***
That's the most direct reason that they didn't have to think about it until at least October 1915 or perhaps the end of 1915, at the latest. 1915 was already part of the equation. Russell had even said that the same "Jewish year" already included the time through October 1915. And Russell had also mentioned 1915 in the context of the entire 1874-1914 chronology system not being flexible by more than one year, but also invoking the idea a few times that it could be as much as one year off. So, having already waited through the raging of the World War for 13 to 16 months by the end of 2015, then there would be no real urgency to change anything. Just hold tight, because the Great War itself was proof enough that the timeline was back on track. Every month showed their their timeline was a little off, but only one incremental month at a time. The only time that these increments became impossible to continue accepting, would be on 11/11/1918 (Armistice Day) when the War was over. Rutherford and friends were in jail at that time, and it this of course would be a likely time when Rutherford himself would start "discerning" that something was very wrong with the 1874 timeline. (But we can see that even he still didn't do what we might expect with the date of Christ's presence -- I'll get to that if this doesn't get too long.)
A less direct reason for not discerning 1914, in 1914, might have been just as important. It's the fact that the 1874 timeline required a 40-year harvest until 1914. And several years (perhaps 3 and 1/2 years?) of upheaval and tribulation during this harvest period at the end. The "day or wrath" was inside this 40 year time period, parallel with it, not outside of it -- not after it. This meant that they expected a great tribulation of sorts to break out in 1910 or 1911. The "one-year-off" idea was also invoked here so that 1912 was also later mentioned as a possibility.
*** Watch Tower, February 1, 1903 [Reprints p. 3141] ***
So far as the Scriptures guide us, we expect the climax of the great time of anarchous trouble in October, 1914. Our opinion is that so great a trouble would necessarily last in violent form at least three or four years before reaching that climax. Hence, we expect strenuous times by or before October, 1910. Reasoning backward from 1910 A.D. we are bound to assume that the conditions leading up to such violence as we then expect would include great financial depression, which probably would last some years before reaching so disheartening a stage. We could not, therefore, expect that depression to begin later than, say, 1908." *** end of quote ***
The "annihilating of human institutions" was timed to the end of the Gentile Times and readers were wondering and speculating on whether that meant that the worst of it would be over by October 1914 or could there be several months that would be even worse than the years leading up to October 1914?
The chaos would still end in 1914 even if it lasted until near the end of 1915. Therefore even in 1904 through 1911 Russell could still make statements that matched what he had said in 1896:
*** Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, p. 226 ***
"Now, in view of recent labor troubles and threatened anarchy, our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They do not see how present conditions can hold out so long under the strain. We see no reason for changing the figures - nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble." *** end of quote ***
In 1911, the full completion of the anarchy was still going to be October 1914. Revelation had said that "in one hour" her judgment will be upon her. That one hour could still last the entire year, but the focus was still on the month of October. This is from the Watchtower, June 15, 1911:
"October, 1914, will witness the full end of Babylon, "as a great millstone cast into the sea," utterly destroyed as a system." (p.190)
The new understanding in 1904 was that there would still be a specific, perhaps even violent tribulation that many Christians (and chosen ones) could come through prior to 1914. But it was now seen that some of the references to a time of worldwide anarchy, such as the world had never seen before, would obviously result from the fall of the human and religious institutions in 1914. In spite of that change, Russell only felt it necessary to focus on 1915 as the outside date instead of 1914. Prior to 1904, the teaching gave the same 3 to 4 year length of the tribulation to the generally parallel time of great anarchy. In moving the time of anarchy to after October 1914 instead of before, I don't think Russell ever repeated the idea that this anarchy would last for 3 to 4 years. He focused on the quickness instead. Matching the 1915 changes to the Studies in the Scriptures (focusing only on 1915 as the updated date), the Watch Tower also only mentions 1915 with reference to the anarchy or "climax of trouble."
*** Watch Tower, June 1, 1906 [Reprints p. 3784] ***
"The thief-like work of taking the church is already in progress; by and by it will be all completed, and shortly thereafter -- 1915 -- the kingdoms of this world, with all of their associated institutions, will go down in a climax of trouble such as the world has never known, because after gathering his bride class the Lord will execute judgments upon Babylon". *** end of quote ***
*** Watch Tower, July 1, 1904 [Reprints p. 3389] ***
We now expect that the anarchistic culmination of the great time of trouble which will precede the Millennial blessings will be after October, 1914, A.D.—very speedily thereafter, in our opinion—in one hour,' 'suddenly' . . . Our forty years' harvest, ending October, 1914 A.D., should not be expected to include the awful period of anarchy which the Scriptures point out to be the fate of Christendom".
However, since those 3 to 4 years of tribulation (and anarchy) didn't happen before 1914, and after waiting until near the end of 1915 it must have became easier (my opinion) to wait and see if this period of anarchy might last 3 to 4 years before culminating in a full fulfillment. That is probably another good reason that Rutherford could say that no one could start to discern new light about Russell's teachings until after 1918.
- HollyW, Ann O'Maly and OtherSheep
-
3
-
4 hours ago, HollyW said:
The January 15, 2014 WT says: "The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year."
True. This is what I meant about "stretching" it a bit. As I'm sure you know, there are several more quotes where the wording creates something misleading, but rarely a complete falsehood. This one pushes the "truth" to its limit, but if you notice it is not technically false. It's true that they were "on hand in 1914." But saying that they "readily discerned the sign of Christ's presence in that year" could mean that by sometime between 1922, 1925 and 1931 some were beginning to readily discern it. It wouldn't have been impressive, but it could have said:
"The first group was on hand in 1914, and within 30 years, almost all the people from this same group who remained loyal to the Watch Tower, readily accepted that 1914 had seen the beginning of the sign of Christ's presence in that year."
There are also several more quotes from the 1930's era that parallel the quote from October 1, 1930:
*** Watchtower, November 1, 1931, p. 376 ***
Who on earth understood prior to 1918 that Zion is God's organization and gives birth to the kingdom and to her children? The fact that no one on earth did so understand prior to the Lord's coming to his temple [in 1918] is proof that it was not God's due time for them to understand. Who understood prior thereto about Satan's organization, the battle in heaven, and the casting of Satan out of heaven? Manifestly no one could understand these things until the temple of God was open.
*** end of quote ***
- HollyW and OtherSheep
-
2
-
12 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
As Jesus' excercise of kingship took place in 1914 and was not a reality before, then acknowledging the event in 1914 is for me the beginning of discerning that fact. Anything prior to that date was purely speculation.That is the way I view it and I have not yet heard anything convincing otherwise.
As I started to point out in my last post, several versions of this same comment have been made dozens of times before, sometimes with careful wording that indicates the writer knew there were limits to what he could claim, and sometimes with not-so-careful wording. Some of these come across as technically true, but misleading. There are even a couple of cases where the wording created not just a false impression but a true falsehood.
The most interesting versions of this pattern go back to the time when Rutherford was still in the midst of re-working doctrines that had been considered true in Russell's time. Here's one that gets right to the point about what was or was not "discerned" in 1914:
*** Watchtower, October 1, 1930, p.291 ***
Understanding that the ''day of Christ'' began when Jesus came to the temple of God, in 1918, it appears that the rebellion must precede that day. The beginning of the falling away or rebellion against God's organization would also mark the beginning of the disclosure of the ''man of sin'', even though none of God's children then on earth understood the matter. The Revelation which God gave to Jesus Christ to show to his "servant" began to be disclosed particularly from 1914 forward, but none of God's children on earth had an understanding thereof for fifteen years or more thereafter. They did see the evidence of things coming to pass which mark a fulfilment of Revelation, but they did not discern the meaning thereof. Likewise the faithful have for some years seen the manifestation of lawlessness and now begin to discern the meaning of the term the "man of sin".
*** end of quote ***
There are also many published statements from this time period that give a clearer picture about what really was being discerned with reference to the date of Christ's presence between 1914 and 1931. It's difficult to get a clear view with just a couple of snippets, so if I get a chance, I'll look up some of the quotes again and post something either here or in the "Millions" thread.
- Evacuated, OtherSheep and HollyW
-
3
-
On 9/27/2016 at 4:55 PM, Eoin Joyce said:
That is my point. And for me, the fact that the understanding has since developed into a clearer discernment of the significance of 1914 events (including the discarding of the 1874 nonsense), means I am quite happy with the statement that they "began to discern" in connection with 1914. They did not know much about what they were discerning I will grant you, but looking back it all makes sense. To me anyway.
If you boil your argument down to its essence, then, you seem satisfied then that the key part of the phrase "In 1914" might just refer to the time that the beginning events of Christ's presence began, which they could discern later, but which it would at least have been possible to discern in that particular year. (No particular evidence of the "discernment" in 1914 would be required.) Perhaps, as they kept looking back on events that they recalled or considered, it would have become increasingly clearer in time that 1914 itself was that new starting point for "Christ's presence." Whether or not they discerned much, or anything, about it in that very year is not so important, because it was still going to be the events that they had seen that year which would finally be put into place in the updated doctrine.
If we were to focus on the meaning of "discernment," in this case, it need be no more than seeing it, at the time, but what they saw is the foundation they will build on as true discernment becomes clearer. Perhaps you are also crediting them (or some of them) with at least a small measure of actual discernment that 1914 might have been so different than their original expectations, that perhaps some were already thinking "in the back of their mind" that it might end up having a different significance than what they had thought previously. Perhaps someone might have even thought that it could end up becoming be a better year in which to claim that the "invisible presence" had started.
I think that's fair enough. You are being a bit more flexible than I am. But it's that faint, vague possibility of that flexible interpretation that makes me think that this isn't really a "lie."
I am sensitive to the ease with which this phrase can still be misleading, however. It does give the impression that there must have been Bible Students, in 1914, who had already discerned that Christ's presence had begun in 1914. And if this is true, we know of no evidence that any of them left for us. (And as I said before, they actually left evidence to the contrary, which I'll expand on below or in another post.) I should add that you might also be thinking perhaps that the writer knows something that hasn't been put into evidence, or even that this particular phrase was prayerfully pored over by the Governing Body and will turn out to be right even if there was no evidence for it at the time.
You probably won't be too surprised, but in my opinion, it's more than likely that the writer has purposely worded it this way, knowing it was a "stretch," out of a strong desire to put the Bible Students beliefs in the best light possible, before admitting that the doctrine they were teaching in 1914 about Christ's presence was wrong. This is almost always the formula for presenting this particular portion of the WTS history. It's my opinion that this was intended to lead the reader to think the following:
- that the events of 1914 had been predicted by the Bible Students
- that the primary event they had predicted was a great time of trouble that would begin that very year
- that they not only predicted the events of 1914, but these predictions turned out to be even more correct than they expected, when it was an actual World War
- that only the Bible Students had the privilege and ability to "discern" these events in advance
- that the Bible students, while still in the year 1914, were able to "discern" that these events provided the evidence that they had been right about expecting that Christ's presence would start in that year
- that this special privilege and ability to "discern" --before 1914-- is intended to "impress" the reader into accepting that the Bible Students were special recipients of Jehovah's holy spirit and guidance
- that this special privilege and ability to "discern" --during and after 1914-- is intended to "impress" the reader into accepting that the Governing Body of the Watch Tower Society were therefore about to be chosen as the special representatives of "the faithful and discreet slave" who were entrusted with providing spiritual food at the proper time.
It's also my opinion that the writer knew very well that what he is implying that they had discerned is not true, but that he has worded it very carefully to get some of these same ideas across without pushing the ideas so far that they would be considered "lies" by those who know the evidence behind it. Once those ideas about "discernment" are out there, only then is it OK to admit that they didn't have a complete understanding, or even a very good understanding about Christ's presence at the time.
That probably sounds like I am saying that the writer was dishonest. Not exactly. The writer likely believes very strongly in the last point (#7) above, and believes that the ideas behind all the other points are either true or mostly true. He must maximize how impressive it is at this point, so that he can add the caveat later, and it won't change the overall impression.
Why would I say such a thing, then? Because I've seen this process up close and personal. Also, it is exactly the pattern that explains the use of similar phrases for many years. There is a very real need to "impress." We can see it in the historical video, Faith in Action, Part 1: Out of Darkness, where (at 44m53s) Brother Anthony Morris III, says "...it's still significant that they could pinpoint that year. That's phenomenal!"
The full idea behind the points in the paragraph of "kr" are also embedded in the following quotes
*** w04 2/1 p. 19 par. 6 “The Scene of This World Is Changing” ***
As that “time” approached, Jehovah took steps to reveal the answer to a group of humble Bible students. With the help of God’s spirit, they discerned that “the appointed times of the nations” began with the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. and that those “times” were 2,520 years in length. From this, they deduced that 1914 marked the end of “the appointed times of the nations.” They also came to realize that 1914 was the beginning of the end for this system of things.*** w13 2/15 p. 18 par. 4 Stay in Jehovah’s Valley of Protection ***
Decades before 1914, Jehovah’s worshippers declared to the nations that the end of “the appointed times of the nations” would come in that year and that the world would enter into an unequaled period of trouble.*** w86 11/1 p. 6 A Dream Reveals How Late It Is ***
For over three decades before 1914, Jehovah’s Witnesses called attention to the significance of this date.*** w81 2/15 p. 10 Insight on the News ***
Hence, another respected authority adds his voice to those of numerous statesmen and historians who, in looking back, recognized the significance of the year 1914. Yet, decades before that year arrived, dedicated students of Bible prophecy were able to identify 1914 as a climactic turning point*** w69 4/15 p. 243 par. 12 Making Men and Nations a Laughingstock ***
Decades before 1914 C.E., careful Bible students had calculated this date by means of the Bible timetable and Bible prophecy. From world events and conditions since that momentous year, it is unmistakable that something ended, an era ended, for the Gentile nations in 1914.*** w69 12/1 p. 719 par. 27 Final Woes to Enemies of Peace with God ***
They did not like to be notified that the “times of the Gentiles” had run out in the year 1914 and that these witnesses had been vindicated by world events in pointing forward for decades to that year as the time for God’s kingdom by Christ to come into full control in the heavens, with authority to oust the Gentile nations from the earth.*** w67 12/15 p. 752 par. 31 “In All the Nations the Good News Has to Be Preached First” ***
Why, for decades before 1914, Bible students associated with the magazine The Watch Tower and with the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society looked for God’s Messianic kingdom to come into full power in 1914.*** w53 8/15 pp. 492-493 par. 3 Living Now as a New World Society ***
For decades before World War I God had been preparing a people to become this altogether different society of our day. To them he uncovered the teachings of his Word . . . He roused them to the realization that the time for the oft-prayed-for Kingdom to be fully established was getting close. Long in advance he even disclosed to them by his Word that the time for the Kingdom to assume power in heaven and in earth was A.D. 1914, for then the time he had allotted for the uninterrupted domination of the earth by the Gentile nations since Jerusalem’s first destruction in 607 B.C. would run out.*** w53 9/15 p. 561 par. 18 Flight to Safety with the New World Society ***
For decades before A.D. 1914 Jehovah’s witnesses had been preaching the full establishment of God’s kingdom by Christ at the end of the “appointed times of the nations” in that year. To confirm their preaching as correct, World War I for global domination by the nations of this earth broke out suddenly in 1914,*** g75 4/22 p. 29 Watching the World ***
For decades before World War I, Bible students had warned that 1914 would be a critical point in history. “The trauma of World War I . . . is widely regarded as a benchmark in the evolution of modern America,” confirms a recent issue of U.S. News & World Report. And such changes were felt world wide. In more recent decades Jehovah’s witnesses have again noted what Bible chronology indicates, this time warning that the mid-1970’s would be critical for mankind. What does the record so far indicate? According to this article, “Historians compare . . . today’s upsets” with the “time of social and moral change” during World War I.*** g73 1/22 p. 8 Who Can Accurately Predict Man’s Future? ***
Based on what he said, along with the words of Daniel and John, Jehovah’s witnesses pointed to the year 1914, decades in advance, as marking the start of “the conclusion of the system of things.”*** yb75 p. 37 Part 1—United States of America ***
Very noteworthy was the striking accuracy with which that book pointed to the end of the Gentile Times, “the appointed times of the nations.” (Luke 21:24) It showed (on pages 83 and 189) that this 2,520-year period, during which Gentile or non-Jewish nations would rule the earth without interference by any kingdom of God, began with the Babylonian overthrow of the kingdom of Judah in the late seventh century B.C.E. and would end in 1914 C.E. Even earlier, however, C. T. Russell wrote an article entitled “Gentile Times: When Do They End?” It was published in the Bible Examiner of October 1876, and therein Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He had correctly linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, 32) True to such calculations, 1914 did mark the end of those times and the birth of God’s kingdom in heaven with Christ Jesus as king. Just think of it! Jehovah granted his people that knowledge nearly four decades before those times expired.*** ce chap. 18 pp. 227-229 The Bible—Is It Really Inspired by God? ***
Decades before that date, there was an organization of people who were making known the significance of 1914. The New York World of August 30, 1914, explains: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ [Jehovah’s Witnesses] . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914. ‘Look out for 1914!’ has been the cry of the . . . evangelists.”29
A People Who Fulfill Prophecy*** kr chap. 2 p. 16 par. 12 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
12 The work those faithful men did in championing doctrinal truth in the decades before 1914 was simply amazing!*** pm chap. 19 p. 332 par. 8 The Kingdom Withstands International Assault ***
For decades prior to 1914 C.E., even since the year 1876 C.E., the nations and peoples of the world had been notified that the Gentile Times would close in that year. Dedicated, baptized Christians, like Charles Taze Russell who became president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, were used to serve this notice, especially upon the nations of Christendom.*** su chap. 3 p. 25 par. 11 How Long Will the Present System Last? ***
Decades in advance it was known that this would come in 1914 at the end of the major fulfillment of the “seven times” of Daniel 4:10-17. But full realization of its significance came gradually during the years that followed. Progressively Bible students saw unfolding before their eyes details of the composite sign that Jesus said would indicate his heavenly presence in Kingdom power.*** tp chap. 7 p. 73 par. 11 When Will the Foretold World Destruction Come? ***
After going on record that the Bible pointed to 1914, Jehovah’s Witnesses had to wait for several decades before they saw the outcome.*** wj chap. 9 p. 23 par. 15 Identifying God-Inspired Truth ***
Decades before World War I began in 1914, Jehovah’s worshipers were making known the significance of that year. The New York World of August 30, 1914, explains: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ [as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known] . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”8- OtherSheep and Evacuated
-
2
-
Just now, HollyW said:
Just curious.....do the two of you teach this to the students you are directing to the WTS Organization?
I do not. I merely mention that Jehovah's Witnesses have been very alert over the years to try to understand the meaning of this prophecy (Mt 24) and have suggested a variety of explanations that are always intended to highlight the urgency of the times, and the need to be always prepared, as Jesus said. I honestly tell them that this does not mean we should focus on any one specific fulfillment but realize that the first fulfillment was evidently intended to remind us that in these last days we should always be focusing on what sort of persons we ought to be, because we do not know when the end will come. Then we read portions of 1 & 2 Thess and 1 & 2 Peter, 1 Cor, etc. There is plenty of positive correct information in the same publications that contain the "generation" interpretation.
- OtherSheep and Anna
-
2
-
14 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:
the only thing you proved is someone else's opinion on how "others" felt about Russell.
Well thank you for finally admitting that I "proved" it. That was the original point.
....
You have just said that "Jesus would exercise his kingship in 1914" and "acknowledging the event in 1914" is, for you, the beginning of discerning that fact.
God's Kingdom Rules
in Topics
Posted
Yes. I agree. And it would have therefore been exactly as appropriate to translate the word "underfoot" it in Luke 21:24 the same way. In fact the English Standard Version does this:
(Luke 21:24, ESV) and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Yes, I absolutely agree with you that is is of no consequence to the meaning. I should have said it's from the exact same root word in both verses. The only reason I emphasized the inconsistency is because some have seen that small difference and think it undermines the claim that the verses are related. (The only times this Greek word is used, are in Luke and Revelation.)
No, of course I do not completely disregard the 7 times of Daniel 4. I believe that they make a very strong point about how Jehovah is truly the one who has complete sovereignty over the nations, and no one can rule unless Jehovah permits it. He gave proof of this to Nebuchadnezzar by actually taking away his rulership for 7 "times" and then giving it back to him. Nebuchadnezzar learned the lesson that Jehovah was the true sovereign. Daniel 4 says that Daniel wished this could be explained with a different fulfillment but that he had to admit that it was fulfilled in the very person of Nebuchadnezzar:
(Daniel 4:19-33) . . .‘O my lord, may the dream apply to those hating you, and its interpretation to your enemies. . . . 22 it is you, O king, . . .24 This is the interpretation, O king; it is the decree of the Most High that must befall my lord the king. 25 You will be driven away . . . 28 All of this befell King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. . . . 33 At that moment the word was fulfilled on Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar.
The final point that Nebuchadnezzar understood was in the last line of the last verse of Daniel 4:
(Daniel 4:37) ". . .the King of the heavens . . . is able to humiliate those who are walking in pride.”
So your question is really about whether it's OK to add a specific second fulfillment. The Watchtower, as of March 15, 2015, and the talk at the 2014 Annual Meeting warned against adding to the Bible in this way unless there was already an explicit Biblical reference that gives us the right to do this. In this case there is not such a reference.
Does it even make sense? The question is about whether it is appropriate to say that when Jesus returns as the righteous king to the Messianic non-Gentile throne in 1914 that this was somehow represented by the return of this wicked, vicious, beastly Gentile king who was punished and humiliated for his haughtiness. Was Jesus humiliated for his haughtiness? Did the rulership of the Messianic kingly line act like a beast, or suffer insanity during any period of 7 times? Does the fall of a Gentile king really refer to the rise of the Gentile kings?
Russell himself never used the 7 times of Daniel 4 to point to 1914. The date 1914 had already been reached by adding 1844+30+40, and Russell even said that Daniel 4 was not the clearest evidence, saying: "there are many other and clearer evidences pointing to the same time. (See the October 1876 issue of George Storr's Bible Examiner). Even when using Daniel 4 (something he didn't come up with himself) it was in combination with Leviticus The removal of the crown from the Messianic kings had been tied not specifically to Daniel 4, but only when combined with the key at Leviticus 26:27, 33:
We believe that God has given the key. We believe He doeth nothing but he revealeth it unto His servants. Do we not find part of the key in Lev. xxvi. 27, 33? “I, even I will chastise you seven times for your sins: . . . and I will bring your land into desolation . . . and will scatter you among the heathen.” Israel did not hearken unto the Lord, but disobeyed him, and this prophecy is now being fulfilled, and has been since the days of Zedekiah, when God said, “Remove the diadem, take off the crown, . . . I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, . . . until He comes whose right it is, and I will give it unto Him.” Comparing these Scriptures, we learn, that God has scattered Israel for a period of seven times, or until “he comes whose right” the Government is, and puts an end to Gentile rule or government. This gives us a clue at least, as to how long until the Jews are delivered.
Of course, Russell was referring to the literal Jews, which was the whole point of the emphasis on the end of the "Gentile Times." But it must have been much later that it was realized that Leviticus does not actually refer to "7 times" in the chronological sense, but in the sense of "multiples" as when something is "7 times worse" (i.e., "twice as bad").
When the 1844+30+40=1914 formula was dropped, then it became necessary to focus on Nebuchadnezzar as a type of Jesus Christ. Here is the February 1, 1934 Watchtower, p. 36:
The proclamation opens thus: "Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you." (Dan. 4: 1) Nebuchadnezzar here pictures Christ Jesus enthroned in 1914, which is the end of the Gentile times, and his work that follows, particularly from the time of his coming to the temple of Jehovah. The name Nebuchadnezzar means "Nebo (that is, The Prophet) is the protector against misfortune". The name properly applies to Christ Jesus, Jehovah's great Prophet, and the one who is the protector of God's people against their foes.